Mahlangu Cleared as Conflict-of-Interest Claims Fall Away

Lawyer emerges from church property dispute without a finding of misconduct as questions mount over the media treatment of the case…

By Staff Reporter

The protracted legal battle over properties linked to the Assemblies of God church has taken another turn, with prominent lawyer Chipo Mahlangu emerging without a finding of guilt or conflict of interest, despite allegations that had placed her professional conduct under intense public scrutiny.

Mahlangu, of Maposa Mahlangu Attorneys, represented the Assemblies of God Back To God (AoG-BTG) faction in its dispute with the Assemblies of God-Spiritual Movement (AoG-SM), led by Phillip Zinyama.

The dispute generated significant public attention after AoG-SM lodged a complaint concerning Mahlangu’s conduct in cases involving church properties.

However, the subsequent process did not establish that Mahlangu had committed professional misconduct or that she had acted in a conflict of interest.

More importantly, Mahlangu was not charged with conflict of interest and was not found guilty of such an offence.

Her position, according to the account available to the paper, was that she was simply discharging her professional responsibilities as a lawyer representing her client.

A lawyer’s representation of a client in contentious litigation does not, by itself, amount to misconduct or create a conflict of interest. The existence of a dispute, particularly one involving valuable church properties and competing factions, cannot automatically be transformed into evidence of wrongdoing by the legal practitioner involved.

The controversy surrounding Mahlangu therefore raises a broader question about the difference between an allegation, an investigation and an established finding.

The Law Society of Zimbabwe had confirmed that a complaint had been received and that investigations were undertaken. The process included giving the respondent an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the matter could be considered through the appropriate professional structures.

Such procedures exist precisely because allegations must be tested before conclusions are reached.

In Mahlangu’s case, the public narrative surrounding the complaint risked creating an impression that professional wrongdoing had already been established, when the eventual position was fundamentally different.

There was no finding that she had improperly used her position. There was no finding that she had placed personal interests ahead of those of her client. And, crucially, there was no finding that she had acted in a conflict of interest.

Instead, the issue must be understood within the context of her professional duty to represent her client and pursue the client’s legal interests through the courts.

The church dispute itself has been fiercely contested, with competing claims over properties acquired during the tenure of the late Francis Nyika and disagreements between rival leadership structures.

But the outcome of litigation involving a client does not automatically determine the professional culpability of the lawyer representing that client.

A complaint is not a conviction. An investigation is not a finding of guilt. And a lawyer’s association with a client does not, without more, establish a conflict of interest.

The allegations attracted public attention and had the potential to damage her professional reputation. Yet the absence of a finding of misconduct or conflict of interest means that her name should not be permanently associated with allegations that were never established against her.